The Validity and Reliability of Two Commercially Available Load Sensors for Clinical Strength Assessment

Sensors

Vivian Chung¹  Christopher Napier²  Kohle Merry²  Alex Scott²  Brett C. Hannigan³  Carlo Menon³  Megan MacPherson⁴ 

[1] Centre for Hip Health and Mobility, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada;Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada;Menrva Research Group, School of Mechatronic Systems Engineering, Simon Fraser University, 250-13450 102 Avenue, Surrey, BC V3T 0A3, Canada;School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada;

关键词: evaluation studies;    hand-held dynamometry;    muscle testing;    sensor characterization;    validity and reliability check;   

DOI  :  10.3390/s21248399

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Objective: Handheld dynamometers are common tools for assessing/monitoring muscular strength and endurance. Health/fitness Bluetooth load sensors may provide a cost-effective alternative; however, research is needed to evaluate the validity and reliability of such devices. This study assessed the validity and reliability of two commercially available Bluetooth load sensors (Activ5 by Activbody and Progressor by Tindeq). Methods: Four tests were conducted on each device: stepped loading, stress relaxation, simulated exercise, and hysteresis. Each test type was repeated three times using the Instron ElectroPuls mechanical testing device (a gold-standard system). Test–retest reliability was assessed through intraclass correlations. Agreement with the gold standard was assessed with Pearson’s correlation, interclass correlation, and Lin’s concordance correlation. Results: The Activ5 and Progressor had excellent test–retest reliability across all four tests (ICC(3,1) ≥ 0.999, all p ≤ 0.001). Agreement with the gold standard was excellent for both the Activ5 (ρ ≥ 0.998, ICC(3,1) ≥ 0.971, ρ_c ≥ 0.971, all p’s ≤ 0.001) and Progressor (ρ ≥ 0.999, ICC(3,1) ≥ 0.999, ρ_c ≥ 0.999, all p’s ≤ 0.001). Measurement error increased for both devices as applied load increased. Conclusion: Excellent test–retest reliability was found, suggesting that both devices can be used in a clinical setting to measure patient progress over time; however, the Activ5 consistently had poorer agreement with the gold standard (particularly at higher loads).

【 授权许可】

Unknown